The problem is that ultimately the business' incentives aren't aligned with their users' and this will be true for any subsequent platform as long as it's advertising-supported.
Advertising-supported platforms make money off "engagement" aka getting people to spend as much time on the platform as possible so they can see ads. It doesn't matter if the content people are being shown is deceptive (clickbait, fake news, etc) or outright malicious (spam, scams, etc). In fact, clickbait, deceptive or intentionally antagonistic typically generates more engagement (as people argue endlessly) than pleasant & useful content.
Solving this problem requires a different business model where the users pay the platform for access just like you pay for your phone or internet service. The problem is that it won't sustain a bloated company with lots of engineers making 6 figures endlessly building an engineering playground.
>>The problem is that ultimately the business' incentives aren't aligned with their users'
Twitter and facebook's business model is to amplify hate between groups of people with varying viewpoints and they got rich by encouraging people to get in other peoples faces and giving them a place to fight it out; might not have started out that way, but that IS the business model now.
It's really no difference than a boxing match promoter selling tickets to a fight, with fans on both sides cheering on their favorite boxer.
most people - if meeting in real life - could have put aside slight differences in viewpoints and converse on the things they do share common-ground, like actual adults.
> Twitter and facebook's business model is to amplify hate between groups of people with varying viewpoints and they got rich by encouraging people to get in other peoples faces and giving them a place to fight it out; might not have started out that way, but that IS the business model now.
The comment you replied to makes sense to me as a money maker but I don't see where the money is made with yours, care to explain?
If people hate each other enough, they feel a need to prove the other one wrong - so they do that on twitter and facebook, i.e. some 'red' person posts something, 20 blue people attach them back, a 'blue' person posts something, 20 'red' people attach them back.
When people are attacking each other online, they are engaged online - and the longer the stay online, the more ads they see, the more money facebook and twitter etc make.
Advertising-supported platforms make money off "engagement" aka getting people to spend as much time on the platform as possible so they can see ads. It doesn't matter if the content people are being shown is deceptive (clickbait, fake news, etc) or outright malicious (spam, scams, etc). In fact, clickbait, deceptive or intentionally antagonistic typically generates more engagement (as people argue endlessly) than pleasant & useful content.
Solving this problem requires a different business model where the users pay the platform for access just like you pay for your phone or internet service. The problem is that it won't sustain a bloated company with lots of engineers making 6 figures endlessly building an engineering playground.